Data from 91 U.S. middle school students using self-reports of
social capital and bullying suggest a link between exposure to bullying
and a decreased sense that people in general are trustworthy and fair.
Implications for individuals and societies are considered.

**********

Bullying is a form of interpersonal violence that is an increasing
concern for millions of students, parents, educators, and communities
not just in the United States but worldwide (Cole, Cornell, &
Sheras, 2006; McLaughlin, Laux, & Pescara-Kovach, 2006). Physical
harm and psychological risk, ranging from the problem of basic health
concerns to serious difficulty in socialization, are well established in
the literature as significant potential outcomes of being bullied
(Chibbaro, 2007; Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005; Wolke, Woods,
Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000). Recent research has also led to the
belief that bullying causes problems for those who witness it as well as
those who are targets (Janson, Carney, Hazler, & Oh, 2009; Janson
& Hazler, 2004). These findings suggest that bullying in schools
goes beyond the immediate impact on individual targets to an influence
on all those who are exposed to it in one way or another. Such a
wide-ranging effect raises the question of whether the environment is
changed in ways that influence people's sense of humanistic
connections and confidence in self and others.

Humanistic theorists have long recognized the influence of
significant others on human development during the preteen and teenage
years. Erickson (1950) identified this as a high anxiety period during
which children are seeking a sense of success in social relationships at
the same time that they are struggling to find their unique identity.
Maslow (1968) recognized that a sense of safety and affiliation with
others are crucial human needs that must be met before significant
degrees of self-esteem and self-actualization can be achieved. Yalom
(1980) pointed out that if these needs are not met, a gulf could form
between self and others (i.e., existential isolation) that promotes
existential anxiety. Rogers (1959) spoke more directly to what he saw as
the primary deterrent to self-actualization, which is when significant
others communicate conditions of worth to young people that move them
away from trusting in their own organism (i.e., their self as a living
complex system of organs). These humanistic principles create a picture
of young people seeking interpersonal connections and confidence that
others will have their best interests at heart. These conditions, in
turn, can promote a sense of freedom to explore their self-actualizing
tendencies.

One lens for viewing this humanistic sense of connection and
confidence in others is through the concept of social capital. Putnam
(1995) provided a widely accepted description of social capital as the
degree of connection with others, the trust that people have in
community and social connections. For children and adolescents, the
basis of social capital is more directly defined by friendships (Raffo
& Reeves, 2000), family support, and a general belief in the ability
to depend on others as well as providing support to others as needed
(Bubolz, 2001). In this study, we explored the possible connection
between exposure to bullying behaviors and the influence it may have on
young people's sense of social capital in the form of the specific
variables trust, fairness, and helpfulness.

The etiology and maintenance of bullying behaviors in school may be
explained by an ongoing cycle in the social environment, similar to the
basics of the broken windows theory (Kelling & Coles, 1996), which
suggests that problem behaviors in a community are the result of
cyclical patterns. For example, a neighborhood with one house on the
street that has graffiti or broken windows will result in additional
crime in the area because the area now appears more conducive to crime
(Kelling & Coles, 1996). Research has found that similar
neighborhood safety concerns are strongly correlated with bullying
behavior at school. Specifically, these perceived unsafe environments
expose youth to frequent neighborhood bullying and aggression (Espelage,
Bosworth, & Simon, 2000) that are in turn reenacted in the school
environment. The cycle then continues with the influence of unabated
bullying matching a pattern similar to that in the neighborhood.
Children who see other students being bullied may develop a greater
sense of distrust relative to the school community, which may in turn
cause fewer students to intervene to prevent bullying.

Humanistic approaches to prevention emphasize the development of
trust in others (Purviss, Cross, & Pennings, 2009) and the wider
involvement of bystanders (rather than involvement being limited to
bullies and targets), suggesting that many people's general sense
of security and trust can be disturbed when they witness bullying.
Overall, a climate in which students experience greater levels of
bullying as either targets or bystanders may reduce their sense of
confidence in people and in the world around them. Alternately, the
absence of exposure to bullying could lead to a greater sense of
confidence in others.

The need for confidence and trust in people and the world is
highlighted in the description of the term social capital, "the
good will that is engendered by the fabric of social relations ... that
can be mobilized to facilitate action" (Adler & Kwon, 2002, p.
17). It is a concept that has been the focus of considerable research
that has supported the benefits of interactions for the general
functioning of social networks, socially responsible behaviors, and
overall well-being (Crosby, Holtgrave, DiClemente, Wingwood, &
Gayle, 2003; Fitzpatrick, Piko, Wright, & LaGory, 2005; Runyon et
al., 1998; Wright, Cullen, & Miller, 2001). Unlike simple behavioral
issues among individuals, social capital speaks to the complexities of
creating a shared sense of humanity among people.

Feeling an accepting connection to others during early childhood
can provide a buffer against the detrimental effects of difficulties
within families and other social settings (Criss, Petit, Bates, Dodge,
& Lapp, 2002). Such supportive environments that include significant
degrees of unconditional positive regard may increase social capital by
promoting beliefs that people are trustworthy, are fair in their
actions, and will be helpful when needed.

Behaviors such as school violence and teen suicide have been
suggested as having a connection with a decrease in the fostering of
trust, faith, and a belief in helpfulness relative to society as a whole
(Hazler & Carney, 2002). When social capital is limited, the
eventual outcome may be a disaffected view of humanity in general. An
environment in which acts of unkindness or violence to other students
are routine and typically go unchecked may result in students having a
sense of low social capital. Low social capital equates to students
believing in general that people (a) cannot be trusted, (b) are likely
to treat others unfairly, and (c) will not be helpful or offer support
when needed. The purpose of this study was to explore whether and how
exposure to school bullying may impede the development of social capital
in young people.

Low social capital may be connected to the detrimental physical,
emotional, and social consequences of bullying and the regularity of
their occurrence (Bernes & Bardick, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001). Such
regular exposure to bullying has been associated with increased symptoms
of anxiety (Craig, 1997) and depression (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin,
& Patton, 2001) as well as physical symptoms of headaches,
stomachaches, enuresis, and poor sleep (Newman-Carlson &Horne, 2004;
Rigby, 2008).

Targets of bullying may also be more likely to incur damage to
their general sense of social support. Hazler, Miller, Carney, and Green
(2001) have postulated that the targets of regular bullying are less
likely than their nonbullied counterparts to have extensive social
networks. It may be that regular abuse by a peer or a group of peers
causes the individual to be ostracized by a broader social network or
that exposure to repeated harassment or maltreatment causes the
individual to retreat socially and become more isolated.

Victims are not the only individuals who appear to suffer from
school bullying. Research in this area has expanded the focus in recent
years to explore the impact on bystanders (Janson et al., 2009; Janson
& Hazler, 2004) and how bystanders then choose to deal with bullying
situations (Hazler, 1997). The impact on witnesses can be significant
and long-lasting. When asked by researchers to recall witnessing
bullying events, people, even years later, continued to demonstrate
physical stress symptoms of increased heart rate and skin conductance
(i.e., perspiration; Janson & Hazler, 2004) as well as high levels
of self-reported trauma (Janson et al., 2009). These studies parallel
research of youth who have witnessed other forms of violence with
results indicating that bystander symptomatic reactions have
similarities to those of persons directly involved (Gilligan, 1991;
Hosch & Bothwell, 1990; Safran & Safran, 1985).

The outcomes of high social capital in adolescence have been the
subject of investigations that provide evidence to support a variety of
potential benefits for youth. Adolescents who have a strong affiliation
with their school, as indicated by self-reports of feeling connected
both with the school in general and with their peers and teachers, were
found to have a decreased likelihood of violent behavior (Wright &
Fitzpatrick, 2006). One study conducted with African American
adolescents found that simply sharing family dinners and having faith in
the ability to turn to one's parents for support were linked to
significantly fewer reports of depressive symptoms (Fitzpatrick et al.,
2005). Other researchers investigating risky sexual behaviors found that
higher levels of social capital tended to result in safer sexual
behaviors among adolescents (Crosby et al., 2003).

This formative period for the development of social capital has the
potential to be negatively influenced by bullying in such a way that
youth could develop a less favorable outlook on humanity. The potential
exists for children to develop a belief that the support of peers and
family does little to fend off the potential for harm, which could limit
the extent of trust in others, the sense that fairness is a part of the
world, and the sense that people will be helpful more than self-serving.

The three factors of perceiving trust, fairness, and helpfulness in
others that make up social capital have their own respective
implications for individuals and society. If a belief that others are
basically trustworthy is compromised by negative experiences in social
networks during formative years, it is conceivable that these negative
viewpoints could be generalized to society as a whole. Such distrust
relative to a community has been found to be related to the level of
violence in that area (Cuesta, 2009). A generalized sense of trust, on
the other hand, can result in less fear of violence and less need to
contemplate violence against untrusted others as a form of
self-protection.

People who have more social capital have a greater level of
confidence that they will be treated fairly by others (Putnam, 2000).
This confidence is an acceptance that people in general are not
automatically seeking personal benefit through taking advantage of
others. Those with more social capital have a relationship model that
presumes people will most likely try to be fair, resulting in a greater
potential for taking the personal and professional risks with others
that are necessary for social, emotional, and professional development.
Alternately, the sense that one would not be treated fairly leads to
less risk-taking and limited growth opportunities. Bullying may
represent exposure to the unfairness of people and society, particularly
in instances in which bullying is witnessed but not prevented or
punished.

A sense of trust and fairness in others does not in itself create
the belief that people will be there to provide support as needed.
Social capital increases as people come to believe that others can be
expected to be helpful in providing support (Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004).
Putnam (1995) suggested that a decrease in civic participation may be
related to the belief that no one else is willing to help improve
society so contributions in general are a waste of time. Similarly, the
student who does not believe that peers or adults will be helpful in a
time of need may not be willing to reach out and help others. This mode
of belief and the associated behavior pattern could be related to the
reasons that bystanders who witness school bullying might not step in to
support someone being victimized (Oh & Hazler, 2009).

The separate bodies of literature on social capital and adolescent
school bullying are considerable but are only connected in theory at
this time. Even less information exists on how they might be related in
a school community. The purpose of this study was to explore the
relation between bullying and social capital within the school
community. We proposed the following two research questions to gain
additional information on these issues: Does exposure to bullying reduce
students' sense of social capital (i.e., trust, fairness, and
helpfulness)? Does witnessing of others' attempts to stop bullying
situations increase social capital?

METHOD

Participants

Ninety-one sixth-grade students from a rural midwestern school
returned permission slips from home to take part in this study. The
school district has approximately 2,000 students, with one middle school
that averages 200 sixth-grade students and 600 students overall in
Grades 4-6. More than one third of the students qualify for free or
reduced lunch. Approximately 50% of the sixth-grade students volunteered
to participate in this study. Their ages ranged from 11 to 14 years,
with a mean of 11.5 years for the 55 girls and 36 boys. Self-reported
ethnicity of individuals was reflective of the region: Euro-Americans
(86.2%), African Americans (6.4%), American Indians (5.3%), and other
(2.1%). Median household income in the district was reported to be
approximately $35,000 per year.

Measures

Four specific components of the School Bullying Survey (SBS;
Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1991) were used for this study: the
demographic information, a standardized definition of bullying, three
items that map exposure to bullying events, and three items related to
social capital. The SBS itself is a 28-item paper-and-pencil measure,
including items assessing general demographic information (e.g., age,
sex, grade, and race) and specific items related to being (a) a bully,
(b) a target of bullying, and/or (c) a witness of bullying during the
current academic year. The SBS has been used in previous research on
bullying (Carney, 2000; Hazler et al., 1991; Hoover, Oliver, &
Hazler, 1992), although no validity or reliability scores have been
reported on this survey instrument.

The SBS is structured so that participants first read a definition
of bullying commonly used in research:

Bullying means: (a) repeated (not just once) harm to others by
hurting others' feelings through words or by attacking and
physically hurting others; (b) may be done by one person or by a group;
(c) happens on the school grounds or on the way to and from school; and
(d) is an unfair match like the person doing the bullying is physically
stronger or better with words or making friends than the person being
bullied. (Hazler et al., 2001, p. 134)

The participants then answer the remaining items.

Exposure to bullying events (EBE) is a composite variable that we
developed for previous research by combining participants' response
scores on two items from the SBS. The first item read, "How often
were you bullied at school?" Six possible responses on a
Likert-scale format ranged from 1 = not been bullied at school this year
to 6 = bullied almost every day. The second item read, "How often
did you see other students being bullied at school?" This item had
four possible responses on a Likert-scale format ranging from 1 = not
seen others being bullied at school this year to 4 = seen bullying every
day at school this year.

These two SBS items about bullying experiences are designed to map
the degree of exposure to bullying in school in a way similar to other
research questions that reflect exposure to violence in a home or a
community. The theory behind this type of research is that the tension
and anxiety related to abusive acts in the home, the community, or
school have an overall impact on people who observe it as a part of
their daily life as well as on those who are direct targets of such acts
or abusers. The EBE composite variable has been used in other published
research (e.g., Carney, Hazler, Oh, Hibel, & Granger, 2010; Oh &
Hazler, 2009) for similar purposes because both being a target of and
witnessing bullying create problems for people, although being a target
has greater consequences (Janson & Hazler, 2004).

The first step in creating the EBE variable was to combine
responses from both SBS items. The combination resulted in 24 (6 x 4)
ordinal scales ranging from no victimization (1) and no witnessing (1)
to the highest victimization (6) and every day witnessing (4). A
continuum was then developed that established bullying exposure on a
1-24 scale for each individual whereby a target of bullying always
received more weight. The result was that a student who reported being a
target several times a week (5) and witnessed a bullying event sometimes
(2) would be at a higher point on the ordinal scale, rating = 18, than
another student who reported being a target once a week (4) and
witnessed bullying every day (4), rating = 16. Because the first student
was victimized more frequently than the second student, the first
student ranked higher on the ordinal scale measuring the EBE variable
(see Table 1).

The degree to which participants witnessed others intervening in a
bullying situation was measured by the third SBS item, "How often
did other students try to stop a student from bullying another at
school?" Responses for this item on a Likert-scale format ranged
from 1 = never to 6 = almost always.

In this study, social capital was measured using three questions
that were originally used in the General Social Survey (GSS; n.d.). The
GSS is a well-respected program of research that collects high-quality
data designed to monitor social changes in the United States and to
allow for comparisons of similar data from other nations (Putnam, 2000).
Consisting of demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal questions, plus
topics of special interest, the survey has provided data from 1972 to
the present, making it a major source of information on societal trends.
The GSS has been used as a resource for more than 15,000 scholarly
publications, which makes it second only to the U.S. Census as a
reliable data source (GSS, n.d.). This survey has also been used as a
reliable measure of social capital in previous research, because social
engagement and reciprocity are believed to have a strong connection to
social capital (Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow-Stith, 1997).

The three questions we used from the GSS are designed to measure
people's sense of how trustworthy, fair, and helpful other people
will be to them. Each question to assess social capital in this study
was answered in a yes/no format. Whether people see others as
trustworthy was the first question asked, "Generally speaking,
would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can't be
too careful in dealing with people?" The purpose of this question
was to assess whether the student maintains a general belief that
humanity can be trusted and that confidence can be placed in the
majority of people where dependence and reliability are concerned.
Responses were grouped into either the nontrust category (i.e., you have
to be very careful in dealing with people) or the trust category (i.e.,
most people can be trusted). This question and the concept behind it
have been connected in research to subsequent civic engagement and are a
significant aspect of gaining and maintaining social capital (Putnam,
2000).

The issue of fairness was measured using a second question,
"Generally speaking, do you think that most people would try to
take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be
fair?" This item assessed whether the student had faith that
humanity in general subscribes to a sense of fairness, specifically that
others believe in the importance of abiding by societal rules and
regulations. Responses to the question were allocated to either the fair
group (i.e., most people would try to be fair) or the unfair group
(i.e., most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the
chance). When considered along with the previous question, this item has
been used in research as a general measure of whether a person can have
faith that he or she will be treated fairly by others (Kawachi et al.,
1997).

Whether respondents thought people are helpful or not was
determined by the following question: "Would you say that most of
the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking
out for themselves?" This question assesses respondents'
belief that others have a vested interest in supporting people like
themselves and are willing to put the needs of society and others before
their own. Responses to this question were grouped into either the
humanity category (i.e., people usually try to be helpful to others) or
the nonhumanity category (i.e., people are generally looking out for
themselves).

RESULTS

All students reported being exposed to repetitive bullying either
as a target (n = 35) or a witness (n = 68). Targets indicated varying
chronic levels of bullying from almost every day (n = 6), several times
a week (n = 1), about once a week (n = 2), sometimes (n = 12), to only
once or twice (n = 14). Students reported seeing bullying in their
school ranging from every day (n = 11), many times (n = 14), to
sometimes (n = 43). Fifty-six percent (n = 51) of the students believed
that others can be trusted in general, 36% (n = 33) indicated a belief
that others are generally fair, and 38% (n = 35) believed that others
are generally helpful rather than simply looking out for their own
interests.

Trust Versus Nontrust Groups

A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was performed to answer Hypothesis 1: that there would be differences
between the trust and the nontrust labeled students regarding exposure
to bullying and witnessing others intervene to prevent bullying. There
was a statistically significant difference between the trust and the
nontrust groups on the combined dependent variables, F(2, 82) = 5.79, p
< .004; Wilks's [LAMBDA] = .88; partial [[eta].sup.2] = .12.
When the dependent variables were considered separately, frequency of
exposure to bullying was found to have a statistically significant
difference, F(1, 83) = 4.96, p < .029; partial [[eta].sup.2] = .06,
as was witnessing others intervene to prevent bullying, F(1, 83) = 8.22,
p < .005; partial [[eta].sup.2] = .09.

Separate independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare the
mean scores of reports of being bullied and witnessing others intervene
to stop bullying. Students in the nontrust group had significantly
higher reports of exposure to bullying in the last year (M = 2.15, SD =
1.51) than did their counterparts in the trust group (M = 1.48, SD =
1.09); t(86) = 2.4, p = .02. Students in the trust group, however, had
significantly higher reports of seeing other students attempting
interventions to stop bullying (M = 2.58, SD = 1.62).

Fairness Versus Unfairness Groups

A second one-way between-groups MANOVA was performed to answer
Hypothesis 2: that there would be differences between the fair and
unfair labeled students regarding exposure to bullying and witnessing
others intervene to prevent bullying. There was a statistically
significant difference between the fair and the unfair groups on the
combined dependent variables, F(2, 83) = 3.69, p = .029; Wilks's
[LAMBDA] = .92; partial [[eta].sup.2] = .08. When the dependent
variables were considered separately, frequency of exposure to bullying
was the only difference to reach statistical significance, F(1, 84) =
6.70, p < .011; partial [[eta].sup.2] = .07. An independent sample
t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of reports of exposure
to bullying. Students in the unfair group had significantly higher
reports of exposure to bullying in the last year (M = 2.16, SD = 1.56)
than did their counterparts in the fair group (M = 1.39, SD = 1.00);
t(86) = 2.53, p = .013.

A one-way between-groups MANOVA was performed to answer Hypothesis
3: that there would be differences between the helpful and nonhelpful
groups regarding exposure to bullying and witnessing others intervene to
prevent bullying. There was no statistically significant difference
between the helpful and the nonhelpful groups on the combined dependent
variables, F(2, 82) = 1.45, p = .241; Wilks's [LAMBDA] = .97;
partial [[eta].sup.2] = .03.

The overall results provided support for Hypothesis 1 (that there
would be differences between the trust and nontrust labeled students
regarding exposure to bullying and witnessing others intervene to
prevent bullying) because students in the trust group had significantly
less exposure to bullying overall and significantly more exposure to
students intervening to prevent bullying. Hypothesis 2 (that there would
be differences between the fair and unfair labeled students regarding
exposure to bullying and witnessing others intervene to prevent
bullying) was partially supported because students in the fair group had
significantly less exposure to bullying overall, but not significantly
more exposure to students intervening to prevent bullying. Hypothesis 3
(that there would be differences between the helpful and nonhelpful
labeled students regarding exposure to bullying and witnessing others
intervene to prevent bullying) was not supported, because there was no
statistically significant difference between the helpful and nonhelpful
groups.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the potential relationship between the sense of
social capital and frequency of exposure to bullying in sixth-grade
students. The composite variable exposure to bullying attempted to
capture students' sense of their environment when their experiences
as a target, bully, and/or witness to such events were combined. We used
three items from the GSS to evaluate social capital based on the degree
to which students believed that people in general could be expected to
be trustworthy, fair, and helpful. Results indicated that trust in
others was significantly related to less bullying exposure and more
witnessing of intervention by others. Students' sense of the
likelihood of being treated fairly by others was significantly related
only to less bullying exposure, and feelings that others would be
generally helpful were not significantly related either to bullying
exposure or to witnessing interventions.

Trust

Results of this study support the concept that bullying is
associated with the damaged relationships and social mistrust that
diminish the sense of faith in people and society, because trust was
higher for students who had been exposed to less bullying. Traumatic
life experience is one of the strongest factors that reduce trust in
other people (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002), and this study's
results suggest that a similar effect for school-age children may be
related to the trauma caused by bullying (Janson & Hazler, 2004;
Janson et al., 2009). Chronic victimization by peers is internalized as
a form of trauma for many youth and may have a long-lasting impact on
many as they grow into adulthood (Carney, 2008). In his personality
theory presented in 1961, Rogers (1995) emphasized the role of trust as
being critical to positive human development. This trust in one's
own organism that is needed to acquire the most satisfying behavior can
be diminished when the environment is hostile and unsupportive.
Counselors of adults as well as youth should be aware of the personal
and social implications of these issues for clients.

Some sense of trust in other people is required for the creation
and maintenance of democratic societies and related social affairs
(Cook, 2001). At some point, people must be willing to trust others, or
they will either not engage or engage dishonestly in the social realm.
Either one of these negative reactions that are due to a lack of trust
diminishes productive relationships for the person, for others, and for
the community as a whole. More trust, on the other hand, creates greater
social and civic participation and is associated with less violence
(Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). These issues were the
cornerstones of Rogers's success using group work for peace among
opposition groups in Northern Ireland (Rogers, 1987), South Africa
(Rogers & Sanford, 1987), and Central America (Thayer, 1987).
Greater participation and low levels of violence are hallmarks of
productive social climates in neighborhoods, schools, and classroom
communities. Investing in the social capital of youth can be seen as a
lifelong approach whereby investments made now may benefit not only this
generation, but also the next one.

This study's finding that witnessing more people positively
intervene in bullying situations is connected to greater levels of trust
adds weight to the importance of supporting others during incidents of
social injustice. Antibullying programs are built around encouraging
students to stand up against bullying (Hazler & Carney, 2006) just
as neighborhood watch programs are designed to do for adults (Bennet,
Holloway, & Farrington, 2006). Encouraging abusive situations,
observing abusive situations without acting to change them, or ignoring
others who are in abusive situations not only hurts those directly
involved, but also dehumanizes the environment as a whole. Those in the
environment lose trust in the message of individuals, schools, and
communities that one should stand up for what is right and denounce what
is harmful to others.

Fairness

The more frequently students in the current study reported being
exposed to bullying, the less they indicated that they believed that
others could be counted on to treat them fairly. Fear of being unfairly
treated may interfere with youths' ability to form the close
friendships that can mitigate feelings of isolation. Persons of
diversity have experienced something similar to this reaction when
repeatedly viewing themselves as being treated unjustly, and as a
consequence, having their faith in gaining fair treatment by police,
courts, or the justice system as a whole negatively affected (Sherman,
2002). Anger, frustration, and depression are common in individuals who
believe they will not be treated fairly (Craig, 1997), which promotes an
unhealthy learning and personal growth environment for individuals,
schools, or communities. The alternative buffer to these negative
effects would be observing fewer injustices in their environment, which
would then create a greater sense that they would be treated fairly.
Providing consistent responses to mitigate the unfairness of chronic
victimization is an important key to creating a healthy living and
learning environment.

The variable witnessing people intervene in bullying situations did
not reach significance when considered alone. This was different from
the result for the trust variable, where witnessing intervention was
significantly related independent of the EBE variable. The possibility
that these differences might hold up in future studies deserves some
consideration; specifically, why does witnessing people intervening in
bullying situations appear to increase a person's trust in people,
but not a person's sense of fairness in others? One possibility is
that trust may be more closely associated with the individual, in that
witnessing interventions in bullying situations increases trust that
people can and will change bad situations. The idea of fairness, on the
other hand, could be more sensitive to the situation itself where, by
definition and observation, bullying situations are inherently unfair
relationships.

Helpful

Unlike the results for trust and fairness, no significant
relationships were found for the expectation that people can be helpful
aspect of social capital in the current study. Seeing less bullying or
more people intervening when people are bullied did not appear to
influence expectations that others could be counted on for support when
needed. Whereas a combination of less bullying and more interventions
against bullying could demonstrate that one can trust people and the
system and that fairness will generally prevail, the students in this
study were less convinced that people would actually come to their aid
when help was needed. Previous findings with adults suggested that
results for fairness and trust would be similar (Putnam, 2000), but the
results of the current study suggest that there are potential
differences in school bullying situations.

The nature of schools revolves around evaluation of individual
achievement and behavior rather than behavior for pairs or groups.
Although students may trust the system and see it as fair, they also
realize that they will be evaluated on individual accomplishments and
behaviors independent of any help they might receive from others. In the
context of bullying, they may see how the concepts and system are
viable, while also sensing that help is less likely because they are
expected to handle problems independently.

STUDY LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Limitations to this exploratory study need to be considered, even
though the results do reflect reasonable connections to previous
research. Participants comprised a relatively small sample of 91
sixth-grade students in a rural community and do not represent a
nationwide sample. Measuring social capital with three self-report
questions, even though these items have been used in national samples
for years, only provides a limited sense of the participants'
personalized experience, with no specific information on their actual
social support network. Moreover, the extent to which these measures
have been utilized specifically with an adolescent population is
limited. These limitations have relevance for future research where the
concerns can be taken more fully into consideration. A possible avenue
for further exploration would be developing a qualitative study to more
thoroughly assess the ways in which students internalize the experiences
of bullying, both as targets and as witnesses.

Implications for counselors include programmatic aspects related to
the importance of developing and implementing effective bullying
intervention programs and other programs designed to create more
supportive and socially just environments. Assuming that there is a
cycle whereby witnessing problematic behaviors reduces trust, which then
causes more problematic behaviors in the school that further reduces
trust, it seems warranted to implement programs that facilitate a
greater sense of support and trust among students. Acquiring and
maintaining social capital requires that people believe that others can
be expected to provide helpful information and support
(Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004), and additional research needs to identify
best practice methods that serve this end.

Youth generally come to counseling because of behaviors identified
by adults as problems. Expectations are that the counselor will work to
change the behavior so that the child and adults will have a better
experience. A more humanistic view recognizes that behaviors are only
one aspect of any problem and simple diagnoses rarely sum up a
child's issues. An internal sense of the trust, fairness, and
helpfulness available from people in general can be factors that promote
positive behaviors. Deficits in these factors could be expected to
produce any number of personally or socially problematic behaviors as
protective actions against expected dangers. The broken window concept
that a positive perspective increases the potential for positive
reactions from others and a negative perspective increases negative
responses should encourage counselors to go beyond basic reasoning and
behavioral techniques to directly explore these more existential issues.

The impact of a child being a target of or a bystander who is a
witness to bullying has been demonstrated to extend into adulthood, and
it appears that related social capital issues would do so as well.
Anger, depression, and frustration related to perceived social and
personal injustices and a lack of help from others are common themes
with adults. Counselors should be ready to explore these issues that may
have been produced by experiences with bullying at home, in the
community, at school, or in the workplace.

CONCLUSION

As a society, we have indirectly invested in the social capital of
youth by encouraging and even legislating antibullying programs.
Implementing programs on a widespread basis has fostered some degree of
responsibility for intervention by peers. We must attempt to enhance
this sense of responsibility to make a difference in the plight of those
who experience abuse and take deliberate steps to have our youth
understand the influence each of them can have on the climate for
everyone in their environment.

We must make better use of file potentially strong ties connecting
people within the system to help potential targets of bullying trust in
the system and see that it is fair. These bonding relationships between
students and school personnel, families, friends, and neighborhood
communities act as the primary vehicles for reducing the amount of
bullying that occurs and reducing the impact of the abuse on targets and
witnesses of bullying. This enhanced involvement across the primary
systems (e.g., family with school, school with community, family with
community) provides additional opportunities for various networks to
voice concern and create change for the victimized student. Opening the
channels to resources that the various systems provide creates a formal
avenue to effect this necessary change.

Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying in schools: How parents and
educators can reduce bullying at school. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and
interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered
framework, in S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3,
pp. 184-256). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

TABLE 1
Exposure to Bullying Events (EBE) Variable
EBE Ordinal
Scale Victim Frequency Witness Frequency
1 1 = not been bullied this year 1 = not seen
2 1 = not been bullied this year 2 = sometimes
3 1 = not been bullied this year 3 = many times
4 1 = not been bullied this year 4 = every day
5 2 = bullied once or twice 1 = not seen
6 2 = bullied once or twice 2 = sometimes
7 2 = bullied once or twice 3 = many times
8 2 = bullied once or twice 4 = every day
9 3 = bullied sometimes 1 = not seen
10 3 = bullied sometimes 2 = sometimes
11 3 = bullied sometimes 3 = many times
12 3 = bullied sometimes 4 = every day
13 4 = bullied once a week 1 = not seen
14 4 = bullied once a week 2 = sometimes
15 4 = bullied once a week 3 = many times
16 4 = bullied once a week 4 = every day
17 5 = bullied several times a week 1 = not seen
18 5 = bullied several times a week 2 = sometimes
19 5 = bullied several times a week 3 = many times
20 5 = bullied several times a week 4 = every day
21 6 = bullied almost every day 1 = not seen
22 6 = bullied almost every day 2 = sometimes
23 6 = bullied almost every day 3 = many times
24 6 = bullied almost every day 4 = every day

COPYRIGHT 2011 American Counseling Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.